In the past week, the unfolding events in Afghanistan have dominated the media space. The seemingly unimaginable happened. The Taliban forces marched into the capital, forcing the scampering away of the president of Afghanistan and his officials, western diplomats, and a few Afghans privileged to be airlifted or unfortunate to cling on the wheels of aeroplanes in desperation to leave Afghanistan for good. Leaders in corridors of powers in western capitals are desperate to frame the failed mission in Afghanistan as a self-inflicted defeat by the Afghans, and their spin doctors are busy trying to convince the world that the West, especially, the US has played its role and left the Afghans to pilot their affairs and shape their destiny.

As Nigerians were watching the events unfold, the big question in the minds of most is how this will impact Nigeria. The imagery of Taliban bestriding like a colossus and devouring city after city as it made its way to the capital is reminiscent of Boko Haram, and Islamic State West African Province (ISWAP)’s videos littered all over the social media that Nigerians are used to, albeit on a smaller scale. These groups pillage, rape, and kill many Nigerians at the fringes of our borders and various ungoverned spaces, whilst the herders/farmers conflict is bloody and ubiquitous across the country. Boko Haram and the Taliban have similar footprints and may even be acting from the same script.

The big elephant in the room is, can Boko Haram, ISWAP or “militia-Herdsmen” become the Nigerian ‘Taliban’? Can they match to Abuja and overthrow our legitimate and constituted government? What strategic lessons should Nigeria learn from the fall of Afghanistan to avoid similar scene? These questions call for an appropriate assessment of the situation, soul searching and the answers should influence how Nigeria tackles these intractable problems from now on.

To appraise whether Boko Haram terrorists can overrun the country like the Taliban were able to do in Afghanistan, we need to take a closer look at what drives and sustains Islamic extremists. In as much as the West, through their powerful media, depict the Taliban as a group of ogres who impose medieval punishment on the citizenry and deprive women of fundamental freedom and rights, the group has a level of support within the local Afghan population. This support enabled them to maintain a considerable level of resistance to the occupying American and allied forces in the country for 20 years, which led to the death of tens of thousands of Westerners and their Afghan collaborators. It also enabled them to overrun the country immediately after the Americans pulled out.

In the Nigerian context, the Boko Haram terrorists still draw some support from large swathes of the local population. These people give overt and covert support to the insurgents, which has enabled them to mount a sustained resistance to the Nigerian military.

To address this problem, we must tackle the root causes of terrorism, including poor governance, corruption, poverty, dearth of economic opportunities and lack of social and basic amenities. The strategy of many terrorist groups in recruitment is always to target disgruntled people, people suffering from social and economic injustice, who feel left behind by the elite and the political class. It is instructive to note that the hotbeds of Islamic extremism and terrorism in Nigeria are in areas with the country’s most extraordinary incidents of perverse poverty and educational backwardness. These are areas where people lack basic amenities, areas with high unemployment rates and high illiteracy levels.

The experience of the US military in Afghanistan means that effectively tackling terrorism is not just simply about military warfare. The Americans and their allies invaded Afghanistan after 9/11, routed the Taliban and installed a government seen by many Afghans as massively corrupt and inept. This anomaly extended to the Afghan military, constituted mainly by people who were in for the financial security and opportunities presented by the American occupation. That was why the ‘highly trained’ force of 300,000 quickly fell to a ragtag army of 75,000 in just a matter of days.

Therefore, good governance and its twin – development is a must to root out terror and to cut the supply lines of terrorists. Military might, in idealogical wars, no matter how powerful, would only lead to short term victories. In an article published recently in the Financial Times, President Muhammadu Buhari alluded to this when he emphasised that US military forces on the ground in Africa is not what is most needed. He said what Africa needs most is US investment in infrastructure to help provide jobs and economic opportunities for the rapidly growing population.

Another vital point to note is that it was clear that the Taliban effectively infiltrated the Afghan military from unfolding events in Afghanistan. It means that part of the resources deployed by the US in Afghanistan was ironically used to train and sustain ‘the enemy’. The Nigerian military in 2016 launched Operation Safe Corridor, an initiative for the deradicalisation and rehabilitation of ex-Boko Haram members. The aim of the operation, the military said, was to reintegrate repentant Boko Haram members into society. Through this programme, the Nigerian authorities have recurrently pardoned and released Boko-Haram fighters under the guise of repentance, negotiation, surrender, rehabilitation and deradicalisation. More than 500 ex-Boko Haram members have already completed the programme. However, as can be gleaned from the events in Afghanistan, this measure can be counterproductive. Professor Zulum, governor of Borno state, said some time ago that the deradicalisation of repentant Boko Haram members was not working. Zulum posits that the initiative needs to be reviewed because some ex-Boko Haram members only come to spy on communities and then return to join the group.

In addition to this, some legal experts believe that the authorities discretionally setting free those who ordinarily should be facing grave charges relating to terrorism and other war crimes is illegal. For one, until those arrested are tried and convicted in a court of law, they cannot be legally branded terrorists. And the Nigerian Army is not a court of law, which has the power to determine the guilt of suspected terrorists. For the fact that every suspect is presumed innocent until proven guilty by a court of law, how can a supposed innocent person be pardoned? Aside from the fact that the Nigerian military lacks prosecutorial powers, they also cannot release suspects accused of terrorism.

There are stories that most of the terrorists ‘repenting’ are of Boko Haram and not of ISWAP terrorist sect. The latter, which has been in command of most terrorist activities in the recent past after the killing of Boko Haram leader, Abubakar Shekau, has strict punishments for fighters who engage in stealing and other nefarious activities. These ‘repentant’ Boko Haram members are alleged to be unable to cope with this directive hence their decision to ‘surrender’ to the authorities. So how could people who renounced terrorism because it hindered their opportunities to steal and plunder be good citizens of the society?

Apart from the fact that some indigent persons who were never terrorists might decide to exploit the opportunities to join the ‘repentant’ group for material gains, there is always likely to be great resentment in the local population as they are forced to live with people who killed their family and friends and who forced them out of their homes.

For now, it seems only remotely possible that Boko Haram or ISWAP can replicate the successes of the Taliban in Nigeria. But as the Nigerian military continues an extensive military offensive against the terrorists, there is a need to address issues of poverty and inequality, which would help root out terrorism in the country.

What basic lessons can Nigeria learn from events in Afghanistan in the past few weeks? The core theme in this Afghan story is that nation-building is a local project. No other nation or people can build our country for us. Their self-interest governs any external stakeholders, and if and when that interest is not adequately served, they will abandon the country to its doomed fate. The Afghan locals are the casualties and are left to face the Taliban whilst foreigners are moved to safe places. So, when people stoke the embers of violence and war, they should remember that no external Western forces may come to their aid; instead, they will quickly remove their citizens from the ensuing inferno.

The next lesson for Nigeria is that we should never forget that the idea of democracy, popular sovereignty, and the rule of law, though universal, must be rooted in local culture, values and peculiarities to have a meaningful impact. The clash between fundamentalist Islamism and democracy is real, and instead of exacerbating this ideological conflict, Nigeria should work out a model where both are assimilated and adapted to fit our local peculiarities. Aspirations of the people (not those of foreigners) must be the foundation of democracy and development. Therefore, we must adequately evaluate any attempt to import western values to ensure they fit with local values. It is the citizens that should agree on rules of social, economic, and political engagement. These should not be imposed on them.

Again, it is local political leaders and visionary leaders that build institutions and not multilateral agencies or foreign governments. If the local leaders are not involved in the building of the institutions, they will not own them. Therefore, shared vision and effective communication are critical in all nation-building efforts. The interests of locals are served better by a stable, independent, and prosperous state, and therefore, they must work together to protect it. Economic opportunities and good quality of life for all citizens are the incentives.

Fourthly, military crackdown alone against ideology (Taliban, Boko Haram, Biafra, etc.) is unsustainable. The solution must involve a battle of the hearts and minds of the people. Dialogue and negotiated compromise may be necessary rather than only a show of strength. Government should get the locals to understand the implications of supporting the Jihadist movement on Nigeria existence.

Fifth, Nigeria must immediately address all its fault lines to foster unity and cohesion to fight the common enemy of extremism. Unity is needed now, not fighting multiple wars. Restructuring and creating a sense of nationhood now is inevitable if Nigeria is to succeed. The Fulani herdsmen movement and incursion in other parts of the country and the allegations of land grabbing deserves focused attention by the leaders.

The 2023 general elections must not be allowed to divide or polarise Nigeria. It will leave Nigeria weak.

The last lesson is that a grand strategy to end insurgency in Nigeria must be developed and implemented rigorously by the government in conjunction with the private sector, regional and international collaborators. There should be a rallying call for all Nigerians to understand that Nigeria is at war and must channel resources and efforts to execute that war to the end. Instead of being reactive, government should initiate a grand offensive against all insurgents to defeat the terrorists once and for all times, whilst using the carrot and stick approach. As seen in the Taliban case, firm resolve, local knowledge and support, and material, psychological, and ideological incentives help all stakeholders work at the common goal of defeating the opponent irrespective of the supposed strength. Nigeria should adopt this.

In conclusion, we are far from seeing insurgency in Nigeria overrun the state. However, it is not impossible. We must proactively solve this problem before it gets out of hand and turn Nigeria into the next Afghanistan.

Grazing routes are out of tune. The future of cattle farming is in ranching

In a double down on his controversial pledge to revive the contentious grazing routes for herders, President Muhammadu Buhari on Thursday approved the recommendations of a committee to review “with dispatch, 368 grazing sites across 25 states in the country and to determine the levels of encroachment.” The decision pits him against sections of the country where open grazing has been banned because of the criminality and insecurity associated with it. The president is also playing into the hands of those who have always argued that he is a sectional leader with scant regards for the feelings of Nigerians outside his tiny enclave.

On this matter of grazing routes, the president has been consistent in his disregard for public sensitivities. Yet, even if the grazing routes were still valid, they can only facilitate further clashes between settler farmers and migrant herders. Besides, by allowing some people, including foreigners, to roam the length and breadth of Nigeria, often herding evacuated cattle, we violate the rights of these animals and endanger the health of citizens through exposure to the elements and a cocktail of diseases. So, at a time the conversation is about how to modernise the way we rear cattle in our country, it is curious that President Buhari is the one advocating that a primitive idea be sustained. This is aside the threat nomadism poses to national security.

We have made this point several times: In the history of humanity, the stage of development at which man wandered for a livelihood belongs to the stone age. It was in the bid to stem the internecine violent clashes between herdsmen and farmers, that the 17 states in the Southern part of the country as well as two states in the North (Benue and Taraba) banned open grazing by livestock. With little variations that take care of peculiarities in these states, the law prohibits movement of livestock and open grazing by them. This law is what the president intends to roll back, even when the constitution grants him no such power.

As we reminded the president much earlier on his dogged insistence on ancient cattle routes, the First Republic ended 55 years ago. In the intervening period, migrant cattle herding has ceased in almost every other country. Modern ranches have replaced roving herds while beef production has become a modern mechanised industrial undertaking. Furthermore, wherever those grazing routes of the 1960s may have been, population growth and pressure of farming and land use would have brought them under new uses. In fact, under the Land Use Act, governors remain the custodians of all lands in their states.

Perhaps it will be suitable for the president to provide the platform for a wholesale discussion on the future of animal husbandry in relations to the transition from nomadism to ranching. A package of incentives, including soft loans, liberal access to land, training, and provision of inputs to herders and others can help facilitate the transition and ameliorate the challenges associated with it. If done properly, we can then employ and re-train the herdsmen in modern settled cattle farming. The animals will be healthier; the handlers will earn decent incomes, have decent accommodation, own property, and have schools for their kids. Ancillary industries will also emerge and employment opportunities will blossom.

To insist on some ancient cattle routes and grazing reserves is to further polarise an already badly divided country. A minimum requirement of the democratic ethos is close attention to the barometer of public opinion. Sadly, President Buhari is habitually indifferent to public opinion in his pursuit of personal and group interests. His latest order on the vexatious grazing reserves is a further step in the direction of deepening divisiveness and subverting the democratic will of Nigerians. It is also a serious threat to national security.

Worse still, at a time of rapid global modernisation of production processes in all spheres of the economy of nations, Nigeria seems encumbered with an elected leader with a permanent attachment to and fixation on archaic methods and ways. (Thisdaylive)

By Hossein Saheed

“Majority of the bandits and Boko Haram terrorizing Nigeria are Nigerians committing different acts of unlawful killings in the country and neighbouring countries on the claim that western education is haram (forbidden) and that they want to turn Nigeria to Islamic State like that of Afghanistan. [If] they are ready to take over the government of Nigeria today does that mean The MURIC Director, Prof. Isiahq Akintola will support them as he supports Taliban?”

The statement made by the MURIC Director, Prof. Isiahq Akintola on the 17th of August, 2021 to The PUNCH during an interview is a swift reaction and contribution to a situation a Muslim leader like the Prof. could have made to reduce tension and ensure peace where there seems to be chaos, tension and threat of war like in Afghanistan. I, with utmost respect, appreciate the Professor of Islamic Eschatology for the statement and pray that Allâh preserve him upon the path of goodness!

However, I observed a particular statement made by the Prof. during the interview by The PUNCH. The PUNCH correspondent asked the Prof. whether he is in support of the takeover by Taliban in the Afghanistan and the Prof. said: “Yes, I am in support. And I will explain. The Taliban are Afghanistans; it is their country, it is not America’s. Just as Nigerians have the right to be in their own country. They were driven to the countryside by American invading forces.”

Hence, the statement, among others, made by Prof. during this interview by The PUNCH is the subject matter of this rejoinder regarding the event in Afghanistan. I agree with Prof., however, only to the extent that the Taliban are Afghans and that it is their country and that they have rights to stay in their country without fear. However, it is safe for me to state here that there are limitations to the rights of a citizen in his own country.

The rights of a citizen in a particular country may be curtailed and put to an end if he commits an offence in any other country of the world thereby giving the said country the authority/power to try him in their country. The instance of this is currently happening in Nigeria where a Nigerian committed an offence in another country and he was arrested and he is undergoing trial in the said country. It is on this, I humbly submit that despite the fact that Taliban are Afghans they can be deprived of some rights in their country upon certain conditions.

It is to be noted that the reason the USA forces moved to Afghanistan was to avenge the attack by Al-Qaeda in USA on 11/9/2001. In the attack, Al-Qaedar hijacked four commercial planes and crashed them into different notable places in USA which include World Trade Center in New York and Pentagon in Washington, DC where about 3000 people were killed. The attack was later linked to Osama Bin Laden (the then leader of Al-Qaeda) who was hiding in Afghanistan under the shelter of Taliban.

It was as a result of this attack that the then USA President George W. Bush signed a joint resolution into law which authorize the use of force against those responsible for attacking USA on 11/9/2001 referring to as 9/11 in America. With this, if American forces on getting to Afghanistan truly derived the Taliban in their own country,  as the Prof. said, then the reason could be that Taliban took, either a direct  or an indirect, part in the 9/11 attack in USA.

The Prof. again further stated during the interview that “Now, American forces have fled, that is the way to put it because that is exactly what they did. Biden just said America did not come into Afghanistan for nation-building; it is quite insulting and irritating. You fool a whole country for 20 years”

With humility, I beg to take a different position on this. The fact is, American forces moved to Afghanistan on a mission to stop terrorists from attacking USA through Afghanistan and to get the people that partook in 9/11 attack. President Biden stated this on 17/8/2021 in his remarks on Afghanistan, the President’s speech reads: “We went to Afghanistan almost 20 years ago with clear goals: get those who attacked us on Sept. 11, 2001, and make sure Al Qaeda could not use Afghanistan as a base from which to attack us again. We did that. We severely degraded Al Qaeda and Afghanistan. We never gave up the hunt for Osama bin Laden and we got him.’’ Thus, it was after achieving this that they moved away. With respect, this has nothing in relation to the word “fool” but a mission to achieve a particular purpose.

Another statement made by the Prof. which also brought about this rejoinder is that while the Professor was talking on why he supports Taliban takeover Afghanistan stated that “While we support the return of the Taliban, we will not support extremism and terrorism in any form.” As a matter of fact, Taliban can be supported by any person, sect or country of the world but the fact far from fallacy is whoever is in support of Taliban by taking over Afghanistan government is indirectly supporting extremism if not terrorism. Taliban during their first tenure in 1996-2001 imposed ultra-extremist Islamic law in the country which banned women from working and girls form schooling.

As though that was not enough, when they took over on 16th August 2021, they went to Afghanistan bank and forced out two female bankers on the ground that they could not be working together with male counterparts and gave a condition that they can replace themselves with male relatives.

However, if Taliban are not coming with extremism what name can we call the above act? In Nigeria, majority of the bandits and Boko Haram terrorizing Nigeria are Nigerians committing different acts of unlawful killings in the country and neighbouring countries on the claim that western education is haram (forbidden) and that they want to turn Nigeria to Islamic State like that of Afghanistan. However if they are ready to take over the government of Nigeria today does that mean The MURIC Director, Prof. Isiahq Akintola will support them as he supports Taliban?

May Allâh save Nigeria, Nigerians, the people of Afghanistan and the entire Muslim of the world!

Hossein Saheed is an undergraduate at the Faculty of Law, Al-hikmah University, Ilorin. He can be reached on [email protected]

By Bisi Daniels 

If as it has been suggested, facial expressions and body movements account for between 60 to 65 per cent of all communication, the plain public face of Mrs Zainab Ahmed offers nothing in body language about her current position as Minister of Finance, Budget and National Planning.

As prestigious as the portfolio is, it comes with delicate responsibilities and high public expectations.

The occupant of that office is the immediate recipient of blame for an economy gone wrong; and with the current economic challenges, the seat must be hot enough to leave traces on her.

Yet, at best, people gifted with the power of description can only describe Ahmed’s public face as plain, tending towards seriousness and devoid of emotions.
A lady called her “Obirin Metta” in the Yoruba language, meaning a powerful woman with a three-in-one portfolio, but even that leaves no shade of pride or fatigue on her.

“If she wears pride because of her important ministry,” one observer said, “you would have heard lawmakers, she often meets with, accuse her of arrogance or even threaten her with arrest.

Another test of her humility came when Edo State Governor, Godwin Obaseki, accused the government of “economic rascality” for allegedly printing money for the Federation Account Allocation Committee to share among the tiers of government.

Her response was measured. She said, “The issue that was raised by the Edo State Governor for me is very, very sad because it is not a fact. “What we distribute at FAAC is revenue that is generated and, in fact, distribution of the revenue is public information. We publish revenue generated by FIRS, the Customs and the NNPC, and we distribute at FAAC. It is not true to say we printed money to distribute at FAAC; it is not true.”

The weight of her portfolio, including the unceasing flow of high-level meetings she attends frequently are expected to leave stress marks of her face, but none is visible. Not even the burden of the national economy has been able to leave marks, any more than her trademark glasses has.

Confident on of her job, she looked like one who has no worries for a long time until she confessed she has them, including one that causes her sleepless nights.

Asked by Poju Oyemade, senior pastor of Covenant Christian Centre, during “The Platform,” (an annual conference organised to mark Nigeria’s Independence anniversary), to list three things that keep her awake at night, the minister replied: “Number one is revenue, number two is revenue and three – I would say, is revenue.”

Ahmed’s availability for the event also attests to the modesty and accessibility of a minister who has also granted lengthy interviews to many mainstream newspapers.

Knowledge of the complexities of her portfolio should also equip her with the understanding that Nigeria’s lean revenue base, which has been further eroded by the socio-economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, offers scary scenarios to anybody who understands basic economics.

However, even as one rejoices with the minister over recent increases in oil prices, the joy is quickly discounted by the burden of fuel subsidy the Federal Government has tied around its neck.

One observer was recently rejoicing for her over the affinity of oil prices with the roof at over $70 per barrel until the Group General Manager of the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation, NNPC, Mele Kyari deflated him with the explanation that higher oil price was ironically bad news for the economy.

He described the rising price of crude oil as a “chicken and egg” situation, expressing concern that the prices had started exiting the comfort zone set by the NNPC to becoming a burden.

Kyari put the comfort zone globally at $58-$60, saying that for the NNPC, anything above $70 per barrel will create major distortions in the corporation’s projections and add more problems to it.

Clearly an embarrassing irony, but as a top member of a government that chooses socio-political stability at a high economic opportunity cost, a finance minister can only add the search for a balance to her job.

Also, although she has persistently argued that the country’s increasing debt burden is manageable, Ahmed does not fail to recognize the poor revenue match.

According to her, “The Nigerian debt is still within sustainable limit. What we need to do as I have said several times is to improve our revenue to enhance our capacity to service, not only our debt, but to service the needs of running government on day to day basis. So our debt currently at about 23% to GDP is at a very sustainable level if you look at all the reports that you see from multilateral institutions.”

Similarly, the Debt Management Office (DMO) recently reacted swiftly to recent reports that the World Bank had classified Nigeria among high–risk debtor countries.

Denying that Nigeria is a high-risk country, the DMO said that Nigeria’s IDA’s debt stock as at June 30, 2021 was $11.7 billion, explaining that IDA loans represent one of the most favourable borrowing options for countries like Nigeria and is also consistent with the Medium Term Debt Management Strategy of the Federal Government. However, the current burden of debt-serving could be intimidating.

While it may be comforting that chucks of the borrowed funds go into infrastructure financing, it can only be hoped that the next government will not be profligate or be afflicted with a poor maintenance habit. The debt will still be there.

The Director-General of the Budget Office of the Federation, Ben Akabueze, recently provided another dimension of the revenue question when he admitted that Nigeria’s federal budget, at 4.6 per cent of the gross domestic product (GDP), is “too low in terms of number and the socio-economic challenges.

According to him, the country’s revenue to GDP is currently about eight per cent, just a percentage ahead of Sudan, which sits on the bottom of the regional ranking. South Africa’s 29 per cent, and Algeria’s 33 per cent compared to a 22 per cent regional average.

Also, with an inflation rate of 17.38 percent, down for three consecutive months; 82.9 million Nigerians adjudged to be living in poverty, Gross Domestic Product of 152,32 trillion Naira in 2020, and an annual growth rate of 0.51 per cent as at March, 2021, the macro-economic indicators look promising but could be better for a country in need of fast development.

The problem boils down to the low revenue base of the country with a widening expenditure profile.

An observer said recently that anytime she hears of fresh payment approvals by the Federal Government, especially for unions that should know the state of the economy, she pities the Finance Minister, wondering if “Nigeria’s cloth is being cut according to size or the material.”

Concerned about the trickling revenue stream, Ahmed said: “We have been trying to block and also enhance the cohesion of our people, especially within the revenue ecosystem. We have invested in IT system and trying to collaborate and bring things together,” Ahmed said.

“We have a process whereby monthly, we sit down and reconcile our revenues and tally up the numbers. We are working on interfacing all the IT systems to see companies’ revenue on a real-time or near real-time basis.

“I am prioritising revenue generation as the biggest challenge,” she said. “As a result, I am steering my team to implement some revenue growth strategies aimed at boosting revenue performance, by deploying new initiatives.”

The minister also constituted Tax Appeal Tribunals across the country to accelerate the resolution of over 209 pending cases relating to tax revenues of about $18.804 billion, N205.654 billion and €0.821 million.

To improve accountability and ultimately improve the performance of Government-owned Enterprises (GOEs), the expenditure plans of the revenue generating entities were reviewed for the introduction of more proactive revenue tracking and monitoring mechanism.

Also, through improved planning and a harmonious relationship with the legislature, the country has restored its more business-friendly January-December budget year.

The 2020 winner of the Finance Minister Prize of the African Banker Awards has been commended for “pushing through a set of difficult reforms as well as successfully engaging international partners to help the country navigate an extremely challenging economic environment.”

She admitted last week that, “The year 2020 was like no other year, particularly due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, Our three-year consecutive growth in the GDP was stalled at the second quarter of 2020 by the harsh economic impact of the global pandemic.

The Ministry helped to take the economy through the frightening months of COVID-19, and also helped to set it on a path to steady growth.

Under her charge, the Finance Act 2019 was passed at a record time before the 2020 budget. Counting the benefits, she said, “Through the Finance Act, we have achieved the following: Value added tax (VAT) rate increase from 5 percent to 7.5 percent, which was implemented in February 2020; introduction of a N25 million threshold for small and medium enterprises (SMEs) for eligibility for VAT collection; reduction of tax rates for SMEs (0 percent and 20 percent respectively); administering of the Finance Act 2019; automation of import duty exemption certificate (IDEC) and vehicle registration (V-REG); and automation of the collection of stamp duty.”

Other achievements include defraying inherited debts and liabilities since 2015, such as the refund of the $5.4 billion Paris Club debt over deductions; payment of the $6.8 billion Joint Venture (JV) Cash Call arrears and N1.9 trillion contractor/Export Expansion Grant as well as N488 billion refund to states for roads.

Despite her achievements, challenges persist, some of them as big as the urgency to increase revenue streams and growing the economy fast enough to effectively address poverty, as well as ensuring an all-inclusive economy.

The challenges are some of the reasons it may not be the right time for one to enjoy the leadership of the A-class ministry.
But Ahmed is showing that when not to be a finance minister, is when one is, indeed, needed.

Criticisms that she is not a core economist, like some other countries have, falls flat in her obviously high economic literacy, her ability to match the world’s brightest and the best at global fora, and more importantly, the fact that in the face of the daunting economic challenges, she has shown high managerial expertise. Her experience as Minister of State for Budget and National Planning before her promotion has also served her well.

In fact, in a recent paper published by Mark Hallerberg and Joachim Wehner, in the Washington Post, they tried to find out “why governments sometimes appoint economic policymakers with economics training but often do not.”

By studying the qualifications of more than 1,200 prime ministers, presidents, finance ministers, and central bankers in various democracies since the 1970s, they uncovered that in many older, established democracies, most prime ministers and finance ministers don’t have much training in economics.

“Central bankers, for their part, typically tend to have more expertise, but even here, there aren’t nearly as many PhDs as you’d expect.”

They also found that most governments are already staffed with thousands of trained economists and might be far more important for a leader to be a competent manager with political savvy than to have a lot of technical expertise.

Ahmed exhibits calmness and courage, doing her job effectively without drama and clatter.
With hardwork and belief in the economic prosperity of the country, even during scary times, like during the heat of the COVID-19 pandemic, slump of oil prices and the recent recession, Ahmed continues to inspire hope.

*Bisi is an author and journalist based in Lagos

By Lasisi Olagunju

(Published in the Nigerian Tribune on Monday, 23 August, 2021)

Some years ago, an editor-friend told me that he was slapped from behind by someone during his first pilgrimage to Mecca. His offence was that he pointed at ‘something’ with his shoes in his hands. The person who slapped him was not an Arab. The man who slapped him was a Nigerian pilgrim from our north. My friend said even the Saudis there were shocked at the assault and wondered why. I remembered the story when the Taliban takeover in Afghanistan happened and subdued joy travelled across some notorious parts of our country while a huge number of other Nigerians prayed against having such a misfortune in this land. We are that divided by extremist lines. There are some Nigerians who fear that Afghanistan could happen to Nigeria very soon. There are others who would insist that it is not possible. Now, if you hold the belief that Nigeria is too cute to yield a space to homegrown Talibans, think about that man who slapped my friend in Mecca. The fundamentalist Nigerian who slapped another Nigerian inside a holy site abroad would kill at home. Think of how many thousands of that assaulter that are hatched daily in the vile incubator that birthed him.

Someone described religion as “a retreat from reason.” That is the only explanation for the rise in religious terrorism and the other similar evils troubling the world. Afghanistan is a country with a 2021 population of 39.917 million. Ninety-nine percent of that figure is Muslim. Yet, a supposedly Muslim group called the Taliban felt that their country was not Muslim enough. And when they suddenly retook that country last week, the capital city, Kabul, exploded in horror. What we saw subsequently at the Kabul airport was the irony of hundreds of Muslims desperate to escape a ‘Muslim’ regime. The Taliban’s first coming triggered that panic. Why would a group make itself terror unto its own kith and kin? That question sounds like asking why Boko Haram terrorists murder their own blood and faith relations in Borno.

Now, this is where I am going. The fanaticism that may sink Nigeria is not a monopoly enjoyed only by extremist Muslims. We have supremacist dogs who breastfeed their own and feed on others’. We have acute fanatics among Christians too. These ones may not do indiscriminate murder as Boko Haram does; they may not cry “Kill all, God will know His own” as was ordered by the crusaders at Béziers on 22 July, 1209, but they kill too with hate and scorn. Growing up, we celebrated all festivals – Muslim, Christian – as members of communities of love. We sang, danced and ate together. Now, those are old things fast receding into the dark caves of extremism. There are Yoruba Christians who avoid the Muslim Ileya and its delicious sallah meat like sin. And this is where knowledge and self-awareness should come in. When I see some Christians around me refusing to say amen to Muslim prayers because they are said in Arabic, I laugh. I recently told one of them that Arabic words are used daily in virtually all churches where Yoruba language is spoken. She looked at me somehow. And I told her when you say ‘let us pray’ in Yoruba (e je ka gb’adura), what language owns the key word there – ‘Adura’? It is from the Arabic word ‘Du’a’ (meaning: prayer). My friend and her Yoruba pastor pray daily for Alaafia (peace, good health). ‘Alaafia’ is the Yoruba form of the Arabic ‘afiya’ which also means good health, free from illness, free from grief and problems. The Lord’s Prayer is cardinal in Christian worship as taught by Jesus Christ in Matthew 6:9-13. Its translated version in Bibeli Mimo (Holy Bible) harbours a linguistically interesting line: ‘Sugbọn gbà wa lọwọ bilisi (But deliver us from evil). ‘Bilisi’ is a Yoruba word formed from the Arabic ‘Iblis’ which means Satan – the arrogant, haughty fallen angel who disobeyed his Creator once and is mentioned eleven times in the Quran.

There are many more. What about the Christian cleric – that Bishop/Pastor/Evangelist – who, with pride, calls himself ‘Alufa Ijo’ but silently prays never to have anything to do with Islam? What if he is told that ‘Alufa’ is from the Arabic word ‘Khalifa’ which means successor or representative of the Prophet of Islam? Yoruba Muslims use ‘Alfa’ probably because they know it leads them securely back to the source of their faith. The word ‘sermon’ is translated in Yoruba churches as ‘Waasu’ and it is so used at every service. But it is a word directly from the Arabic word ‘waz’ (meaning: admonition, sermon). Yoruba Muslims call it ‘waasi.’ When my Christian friend binds the devil and prays against ‘wahala’ (trouble), I hope she would agree that the root of ‘wahala’ is the Arabic word ‘wahla’ (meaning: terror; trouble). To skeptics, who may insist on more proofs and more examples, I recommend Italian linguist and scholar, Professor Sergio Baldi’s seminal paper presented at the Annual Conference on African Linguistics at Los Angeles, United States in March 1995. He headlined the paper ‘Arabic loans in Yoruba’ and gave a list of such loanwords. There are other very helpful related articles from the same author. Communication scholar and columnist, Farooq Kperogi has also done a considerable work in this area – all telling us that humanity is one.

I have given the above examples to show that no faith is autochthonous or is a finished product that came from nowhere. The more we know, the more we see no need for war. And if we are so related in faith, why then can’t I pray, you pray and we chorus Amen or Amin and share meals of love and brotherhood? Why should we live our short lives in tension and terrorism and war because of worship when, indeed, every religion is a product of symbolic and linguistic syncretism? This is even more true for Nigerian lovers and copiers of the Afghanistan rave of the moment, those who call themselves the Taliban (from the Arabic word ‘talib’ meaning student). There are several tomes and texts showing that the ancestors of the Taliban brewed their version of peaceful Islamic civilization from a cocktail of cultural items and practices. Yet, because these later ones felt they knew God more than their parents did, they unleashed a more than 20-year insurrection on the world with a human cost of hundreds of thousands including 67 journalists/media workers and over 400 humanitarian/NGO men and women. Our own local variant in the north east is even deadlier. The casualty figures keep rising while the government we have cuddles and wraps the culprits in velvets of rehabilitation and reintegration.

The person who said religion is a “retreat from reason” also described faith as a “refuge of the ignorant.” That is very debatable. But there is a special place for crass ignorance wherever fundamentalism is on the throne. Zeinab Barkhordari, Islamic philosophy scholar at the University of Tehran, Iran, in a 2018 paper describes extremism as a “cover for ignorance.” In Arabic language, according to that teacher, ignorance has two interlocking meanings. One, she says, is counter to knowledge and the other to patience. It is her submission that the self-ignorant cannot be at peace with himself and if he lacks internal peace, he would lack moderation. “One who does not reach internal moderation cannot be at peace with others,” she submitted. There are such fundamentalists in every region and in every branch of religion – even among atheists. And they are in every country – people who think and believe that it is their own duty to condemn you in order to save you. They act like the US army officer who, with messianic conviction, announced to the world that his troops had to destroy a Vietnamese village “in order to save it.” We have such in abundance in Nigeria from the coast to the desert.

Iconic American actor and Hollywood star, Clint Eastwood, has a description for extremists. He calls them idiots who need no depth of thought to take positions. Nigeria has its own Talibans. We should be scared of them because they are worse than the ones from whom terrified Afghans ran last week. So, as we debate, argue and fight over how best America ought to have handled Afghanistan, can we cast a thoughtful glance at our perilous situation? What Afghanistan represents today is more than terrorism and extremism. It represents failure of democracy and failure of religion. Both have failed too in Nigeria. Afghanistan has just re-fallen into the hands of madmen, idiots with illusion of understanding of God’s reason for humanity. I see the idiots too in Nigeria – dangerous, shallow people who inflict belief polarization on a land that is in search of peace and hope. Did you see photographs of the Talibans eating with both hands, their fatigued feet on golden presidential chairs inside the captured palace? What their hungry fingers tell us is that the bearded zealots came to power to eat using the false flags of religion. We have them here too.

The Quran enjoins the believer to “speak beautifully to humanity.” Speaking “beautifully” suggests and includes doing justice to all and speaking truth to power without discrimination. Two weeks ago, twenty-five Muslim travellers were killed in Jos. They were followers of a powerful sheikh based in Bauchi. That unfortunate incident happened and we promptly saw a storm of power-flights from Bauchi to Abuja and back to Bauchi. We heard the powerful sheikh in Bauchi directing the governor of Plateau to do what was right or he would proceed to do that which was right. It is good that the sect leader spoke out firmly for his murdered followers. Now, there is a problem when Godly people choose what good to do and what good to ignore. The sheikh and other sheikhs – Nigeria’s kingmakers, the real electors of our president – have not been heard giving such orders to the Villa over the flood of insecurity submerging the country. They’ve not been heard issuing threats of justice to ubiquitous bandits killing the poor, raping their wives – old, young, pregnant, and abducting pupils of Islamiyah and secular schools. Media reports yesterday said in two months, 77 persons were murdered and 3,631 families displaced in that same Plateau State. In the far Muslim north, the tragedy is even more tragic. Thousands of human beings there have been killed, hundreds stolen for ransom. Majority of them Muslims. Yet, the sheikhs, the ulama are quiet about these horrendous happenings. And it is forever true that the Quran enjoins them to speak out and fight in defence of the weak, the attacked and “for those oppressed men and women and children who cry out, ‘Lord, rescue us from this town whose people are oppressors! By your grace, give us a protector and a helper'”(Quran 4:75). The afflicted has no helper among men of religion. Instead, the ‘helpers’ are holding closet balls in celebration of the Taliban’s second coming in Afghanistan.

The Afghan Taliban is an army of 75,000 tribal gunmen who evolved from being students of conservative religious schools. Their parallel here are those who grew from the Almajiri system. The Nigerian Talibans are thus in millions and they procreate every day, swelling their ranks. And they are everywhere – in government, in trade unions, in the media, in the forces, in schools and in worship houses – everywhere you go. Extremists are described as idiots and we should be scared of them. Argentinian singer, songwriter and author, Facundo Cabral wrote a song, quite popular: ‘Cuidado con los boludos (meaning: Careful with idiots). The song is anchored on the wisdom of his grandfather, a Colonel. Cabral said his grandfather was a very noble man of courage who was only afraid of idiots. He sang: “One day I asked him why, and he told me – Because they are many, there’s no way to cover such a front! No matter how early you rise, where you go, it is already full of idiots, and they’re dangerous because being the majority, they even elect the president…”